10019951
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REPORT TO THE PRESIDENT:
ELIMINATING AND IMPROVING
REGULATIONS
June 1,1995
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TAB 1 Appendix (Narrative Summary and Highlights)
TAB 2 Table: Office of Water
TAB 3 Table: Office of Air and Radiation
TAB 4 Table: Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
TAB 5 Table: Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
TAB 6 Table: Office of Administration and Resources Management
TAB 7 Table: Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
*
TAB 8 Table: Office of Research and Development
TAB 9 Table: Office of Civil Rights, Office of Administrator
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
Narrative Summary
I. Method Used for the Review
Reinvention at EPA is a high priority, on-going effort. On March 16, 1995,
President Clinton and Vice President Gore announced 25 initiatives contained in the
report Reinventing Environmental Regulation. These initiatives are grounded in
common sense and provide the flexibility to use innovative solutions to environmental
problems to achieve greater environmental benefit for less cost. They include
improvements to the current regulatory system and bold experiments to test the
building blocks for a new environmental management system for the 21st century.
EPA continues to explore new and better ways to carry out its mission. This
report represents an important part of EPA's continuing efforts to reinvent
environmental regulations. It is the result of a thorough review of existing regulations
carried out in response to the President's request, on March 4, 1995, that all Federal
regulatory agencies review their regulations to identify those that are outdated or
otherwise in need of reform. The regulatory changes and deletions recommended in
this report are intended to further the Agency's effort to provide common sense
environmental regulation.
Many of the deletions and changes are small improvements in non-controversial
areas which, when added together, will go a long way toward making EPA regulations
more accessible to the public - easier to read, better organized, more consistent and
up-to-date. Other changes address EPA's most controversial regulatory programs
such as solid and hazardous waste,-drinking water, and air toxics. In addition, EPA
has identified a number of ways in which some straightforward changes in key enabling
legislation would provide some substantial improvements in environmental
management. All of the changes identified in this report are part of the Agency's
larger effort to reinvent environmental management through improving existing rules
and policies, and through innovative approaches to new rules and legislation.
Organizing for the Review. Responding enthusiastically to the Presidential
initiative, EPA formed several teams with specific functions. Each major office formed
a broad-based Regulatory Review Team to conduct the line-by-line review and develop
for public review a preliminary list of regulations ripe for deletion or reform. Each of
the Regulatory Review Teams formed work groups that included senior regulatory
program staff within Headquarters and front line regulators in EPA Regional offices and
several States.
-------
In addition, a cross-agency Regulatory Review Coordination Team provided
oversight for the entire project, consolidated Regulatory Review Team reports and
worked with Regional offices to get recommendations from frontline regulators and the
regulated community. In addition, the Office of Administration and Resources
Management assembled an internal work group to examine EPA's current performance
measures.
During the initial review process, work groups employed a variety of approaches
to organize, examine and make determinations about the rules and statutory provisions
EPA administers. For example, the Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic
Substances assigned two or more team members, including representatives from the
Offices of General Counsel and Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, to identify
and evaluate issues on specific regulations and report to the larger group, these
"mini-teams," consisted of a staff member who was well versed in the regulation and
another who was able to provide a fresh, outside perspective on the requirements.
Outreach. In order to obtain a broad range of recommendations in the brief time
provided, EPA conducted outreach on three tracks: meetings with the Administrator
and Deputy Administrator, program-specific meetings organized by the Regulatory
Review Teams, and broad-based meetings organized by Regional offices in nearly
every State. In all, EPA held more than seventy-five meetings with interested groups
around the country. The information developed from these efforts was carefully
considered when determining which regulatory revisions and deletions to pursue, and
is still proving to be helpful in EPA's continued evaluation of its regulations.
During April and May, Administrator Carol Browner and Deputy Administrator
Fred Hansen participated in five stakeholder outreach meetings outside of the
Washington, D.C. area to discuss partnership and flexibility in the regulatory process.
They met with stakeholders in Dallas, Tallahassee, Kansas City, San Francisco, and
New York City. The meetings included representatives from the business community,
environmentalists, State and Federal frontline workers, and other interested parties.
The structure and format of the meetings varied from roundtable discussions to larger
forums with breakout sessions. The discussions were an excellent vehicle for
participants to express their ideas and concerns about specific regulations and the
current regulatory process, as well as ways which EPA can develop more effective
partnerships. At the request of the National Performance Review, EPA helped
establish the prototype for federal agency partnership meetings with a March 21st
meeting in Boston led by the Regional Administrator and attended by forty
stakeholders. In addition, the Administrator and Deputy Administrator discussed the
regulatory reform effort in many speeches and press interviews.
Each Regulatory Review Team provided briefings for environmental/public
interest organizations, industry and trade groups, and frontline regulators on the
-------
initiative, presenting their preliminary proposals and asking for comments and
suggestions from participants. Both informal and more formal approaches were used.
For example, the Assistant Administrator for Water used routinely scheduled breakfast
meetings with stakeholder groups to discuss the regulatory review effort. Other
presentations were more formal, such as to the Small Business Environmental
Roundtable and the National Conference for Underground Storage Tanks. Regulatory
Review Team members"sponsored or solicited comments at more than a dozen
meetings.
Outside of Washington, Regional and Headquarters personnel worked together
to identify stakeholders, inform them about the initiative, and obtain direct feedback on
specific regulations. To maximize opportunities, they identified existing meetings in
every state where they could introduce the initiative and hold discussions with the
attendees. To reach larger audiences, Regional and Headquarters personnel
organized meetings across the country during March and April, ranging from open
forum, town-hall meetings to issue-specific meetings with targeted audiences. More
than sixty meetings with stakeholders were held outside the Washington, O.C. area.
II. Deletions from the CFR
As a result of the line-by-line review, Agency offices identified a total of 1,457
pages which they plan to remove from the CFR. This equals about 11 percent of the
Agency's total count of 12,766 pages. Many of these pages involve legally obsolete or
unnecessary provisions and will be deleted immediately. These deletions will make
EPA's regulations easier to understand and access, but will have little substantive
impact on active requirements. Other changes will result from efforts to restructure and
simplify rules over the next year. Some of the more significant changes are
highlighted below. Table 1 illustrates the distribution of pages to be removed across
the program offices.
A large page deletion is anticipated in the water program area due to the
Agency's planned restructuring next year of two major bodies of water regulations - the
National Primary Drinking Water Standards and Effluent Guidelines. Both sets of
regulations will be simplified and streamlined to provide the public with easier access to
information and remove hundreds of pages from the CFR.
-------
Table 1
CFR Deletions
(Pages)
Office
-
Air and Radiation
Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance
Prevention, Pesticides and
Toxics
Solid Waste and Emergency
Response
Water
Administration & Resources
Management
Other
Total
Removed
305
1
440
86
540
63
22
1,457
Total
6,195
72
2,040
2,022
4
2,090
305
42
12,766
Percent
Removed
5%
1%
22%
4%
26%
21%
52%
11%
One of the most significant deletions is the removal of the Comprehensive
Assessment Information Rule (CAIR) from the CFR. After the first use of CAIR in 1989,
a lawsuit stayed the effectiveness of this regulation until EPA could promulgate
amendments. Although amendments to this regulation were proposed last year, the
amendments will not be made final, and EPA will remove existing provisions from the
CFR. By withdrawing the recently proposed amendments, EPA estimates it is avoiding
costs to manufacturers, processors, and importers of approximately $3,350,000 and
140,000 burden hours.
EPA has determined that chemical test guidelines are best published as
guidance, with the test objectives set forth and the methods recommended, but not
required in detail. Originally EPA intended its chemical test guidelines to be
regulations, and published many of the guidelines in the CFR. EPA has since
determined that a more flexible approach is needed. Maximizing the many non-CFR
avenues for providing testing guidelines to the testing community, EPA believes that
this new approach provides the necessary flexibility for a more efficient and streamlined
testing program which is easily adaptable for testing unusual chemicals or applications.
-------
In addition to providing flexibility to the regulated community, EPA's actions could
eventually result in elimination from the CFR of much of the 500 pages devoted to the
guidelines currently in use.
III. Reinvention Results
The results of the Agency's reinvention efforts are illustrated in Table 2. They
demonstrate that of 306 CFR Parts, EPA will take actions to delete and/or modify rule
sections involving 229 Parts, approximately 75 percent. Only 77 parts, or 25 percent,
will remain unchanged at the current time. In many cases, the unchanged rules are
recent additions, EPA codifications of common rules, or rules which received broad
stakeholder support. It should also be noted that the 17 Parts (out of 44) being
addressed by the Office of Air and Radiation actually represent eighty percent of the
6195 pages addressed by that office.
Table 2
Reinvention Summary (Parts)
Office
Air and Radiation
Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance
Prevention, Pesticides and Toxics
Solid Waste and Emergency
Response
Water
Administration and Resources
Management
Other
Total
Reinvent
17
(39%)
2
(100%)
49
(88%)
43
(78%)
74
(80%)
42
(79%)
2
(67%)
229
(75%)
No Change
27
(61%)
0
(0%)
7
(12%)
12
(31%)
19
(20%)
11
(21%)
1
(33%)
77
(25%)
Total
44
2
56
55
93
53
3
306
-------
IV. EPA Reinvention Highlights
EPA has worked closely with States and localities, industries, and public interest
groups to identify ways to modify existing regulations to reduce the regulatory burden
while maintaining progress toward health and environmental goals. The hundreds of
regulatory changes EPA will make as a result of the line-by-line process run the gamut
from simple clarifications to major program redirections. The largest number of
changes are relatively small ones which eliminate duplications and obsolete provisions,
resolve conflicting or unclear provisions, and provide better organized, easier to
understand rules. These good housekeeping provisions are important, however,
because they save the public and regulated community time and money, and remove
potential frustrations in achieving compliance.
Many other changes will have more substantial impacts on the regulated
community with very large savings in regulatory costs and reporting burden
requirements. Since the details of the changes will be worked out in partnerships with
these groups, it is difficult to quantify accurately the final results of these efforts.
However, we are able to estimate savings for some of the major efforts, and the ones
described in this highlights section alone account for estimated savings of more than
$5 billion dollars and 2 million hours in information collection burden.
The reinvention of existing regulations is only one part of EPA's effort to build a
better environmental management system. Some legislative changes will be needed,
and some of those changes are highlighted at the end of this section. But EPA is also
applying the common sense reinvention approach in all that we do, including the
development of new regulations, administrative improvements to the current system,
and alternative strategies and pilot projects to develop new tools for the next century.
These high priority actions were described in the Presidents's March 16 release on
"Reinventing Environmental Regulation".
As part of this broader reinvention initiative, Administrator Browner has
committed EPA to several initiatives aimed at streamlining reporting and recordkeeping
requirements. First, EPA will reduce by 25 percent existing monitoring, recordkeeping
and reporting requirements. When completed in June 1996 this effort will save the
regulated community 20 million reporting burden hours annually. Second, EPA will
create a one-stop reporting system for the collection of routine emissions data which
will replace the multitude of reporting forms currently required to collect data from a
single facility. Third, EPA is moving forward aggressively to enable firms to report
environmental data electronically rather than with hard copy. Finally, the Agency is
taking steps to cut in half the reporting frequency of regularly scheduled reports, as
requested in the President's April 21,1995 memo.
-------
Office of Water.
EPA is streamlining four of its water-related programs to reduce burdens
associated with them and provide additional flexibility: National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System ( NPDES) permits, national primary drinking water regulations, the
pretreatment program, and water quality planning and management. Of the 93 Parts of
the CFR under the responsibility of the Office of Water, 74 (80 percent) are undergoing
change.
In the NPDES permits program (Part 122), EPA is removing outdated
requirements, streamlining permit application and modification procedures, and
reducing monitoring and reporting requirements. For example, EPA will consolidate
and revise industrial and municipal permit application requirements and forms and
streamline the application process. It will also revise the permit application
requirements for municipal separate storm water sewer systems to reduce significantly
the cost and burden of reapplication for succeeding permit terms. EPA will not require
resubmission of information available from the earlier application or which is not
pertinent for the approval process. These actions will result in shorter, easier to
understand regulations and an estimated savings to the regulated community of $23
million dollars per year, and 287,000 burden hours.
EPA is planning a major revision of the National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations (Part 141) which will have a number of benefits for States and the
regulated community. First, EPA will delete a number of obsolete provisions and
simplify the remaining regulations to make it easier for managers of public water
systems to understand and implement the requirements and for State officials to
enforce. EPA will also streamline the public notification requirements to allow States
more flexibility to design programs which will ensure notice to the public in a timely and
effective manner. Estimated savings to the regulated community: 1.5 million reporting
burden hours annually.
Regulations in the pretreatment program for publicly operated treatment works
(Part 403) will be streamlined and revised to delete obsolete requirements, simplify
program operation, and eliminate unnecessary reporting requirements. For example,
under streamlined procedures only the most significant elements of an approved
pretreatment program would be included in a POTWs NPDES permit, eliminating the
need for a permit revision every time small changes are made to the pretreatment
program. Estimated savings to the regulated community: $13 million and 360,000
hours annually.
Part 130 contains the requirements for water quality planning and assessment
and waterbody listing requirements for State water quality management programs.
EPA will eliminate obsolete planning requirements, streamline listing requirements, and
-------
reduce reporting from every two years to every five years. Estimated savings to the
States resulting from the reduction in reporting frequency: $1-6 million and 39,000
hours annually.
Air and Radiation.
EPA is committed to using flexibility granted by the Clean Air Act to
enable companies, communities, and individuals to meet clean air goals using
innovative approaches at lower costs. In addition to deleting more than 310 pages of
unnecessary regulations, the Office of Air and Radiation is committed to nearly 200
changes in existing rules, and is changing many forthcoming rules to reflect the
common sense priority of the reinvention effort.
EPA regulations implementing the provisions of the 1990 Clean Air Act
requiring most facilities that emit air pollution to obtain an operating permit from State
or local agencies have been criticized for having a complex and prescriptive process
for revising permits. EPA has been working with stakeholders to develop a more
streamlined process for permit revisions that builds on existing successful State
programs. Under the proposed change, States would have greater flexibility to decide
the amount of EPA and public review for most permit revisions by matching the level of
review to the environmental significance of the change.
This summer EPA will propose changes to simplify and streamline the
New Source Review program, which requires newly built facilities or those undergoing
major modification to obtain a permit to ensure that emissions will not cause or
contribute to air pollution problems. The changes will provide industry with more
certainty and flexibility in complying with EPA's regulations and promote the use of
technically superior and innovative pollution control technologies while maintaining or
improving air quality. This streamlining and flexibility will help industry's ability to
compete in today's fast-moving global marketplace.
Working with States and other stakeholders, EPA is taking steps to
provide states with more flexibility in developing enhanced vehicle inspection and
maintenance programs. EPA has begun work on a revised rule which will offer more
enhanced inspection and maintenance options, including a test and repair option, for
States wanting more flexibility. In addition, EPA is delaying implementation of the
waiver provisions until 1998.- The Administrator recently sent letters to governors and
state legislative leaders announcing the new flexibility.
EPA is also simplifying the air toxics modification provisions (Section
112(g)), which require any source which makes a significant change to a facility before
EPA issues an applicable air toxic rule to put stringent controls on the modification.
-------
States and industry expressed a number of concerns about the section 112(g) rule
which EPA proposed in March 1994. EPA plans several changes to the proposed rule
to simplify implementation. For example, EPA plans to make available to industry and
States the information it is using to develop air toxics standards, reducing the burden
on those groups in making case-by-case determinations. The innovative use of
Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) partnerships and streamlining will
result in estimated savings to the regulated community of $6-7 million annually
compared to original estimates of implementation.
EPA is also applying common sense principles to Clean Air Act rules
under development and not yet in the CFR. For example, in response to issues raised
by industry and States about the proposed enhanced monitoring regulation, EPA is
reconsidering the proposed rule and has committed to take a fresh look at ways to
design a simpler, more flexible approach. EPA's new approach will build on
requirements of existing rules to ensure that the environmental results expected are
being achieved. Instead of requiring more expensive monitoring or monitoring
protocols, this approach would focus on ensuring that sources are properly operating
and maintaining their pollution control equipment in accordance with their pollution
control requirements. Estimated savings potential for industry compared to the
proposed rule is $1 to 3 billion over the first two years.
The current ozone control program has focused on a combination of
technology-based mandatory measures and State plans that have historically
discouraged flexible emissions trading programs. But emissions trading can reduce
pollutant emissions by applying pollutant reduction measures at the places where
reductions are the most cost effective. A facility can avoid costly compliance measures
by reducing emissions at points where it is most cost effective to do so. EPA has
already issued regulations and guidance to encourage development of economic
incentive programs, helped develop an emissions trading market in Southern
California, and sponsored demonstration projects. EPA is now developing a proposed
generic trading rule for ozone-creating pollutants that will provide far more flexibility
than ever before for companies to trade emission credits without prior state or federal
approval. Estimated savings potential is up to $1 billion annually (about 10 percent of
the cost of addressing nonattainment).
Prevention. Pesticides, and Toxic Substances.
After conducting a comprehensive review of its regulations, this office will
be amending or deleting 49 of 56 Parts (88 percent), and sections not requiring
changes account for only 71 pages out of a total of 2,040 pages. Major changes
identified to date will result in an estimated cost savings of more than $4.2 billion and a
reporting burden reduction of more than 250,000 hours.
9 '
-------
Reinventing the PCB Disposal Regulations is a top priority for this
program. The first comprehensive review of this 16 year old program resulted in the
proposal of significant streamlining provisions in December 1994. The proposal
provides for self-implementation of cleanups and greater flexibility for disposal of PCBs.
Active stakeholder involvement has occurred throughout rule development. The final
rule is expected in the summer of 1996. Estimated cost savings from these
amendments is $4 billion a year for 20 years. .
EPA recently issued significant burden reducing amendments to the
polymer and low volume exemptions for premanufacture notifications under section 5 of
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). The polymer exemption now excludes from
reporting many low risk polymeric substances. The low volume exemption raises the
annual production ceiling to 10,000 kilograms, significantly expediting the regulatory
process. The new low release/ exposure ("LoREX") exemption- for substances with
low environmental releases and low human exposures-will provide a strong pollution
prevention incentive for chemical manufacturers. Potential reduction in PMNs is
expected to be around 34% for the polymer exemption and around 27% for the low
volume exemption. Estimated cost savings to industry of these amendments is $5.3
million to $24 million per year and a reduced reporting and recordkeeping burden of
57,000 hours.
There are currently two separate Good Laboratory Standard Regulations,
one for pesticides under FIFRA and another for chemical substances under TSCA.
EPA will be consolidating these regulations to streamline the requirements and reduce
reporting and recordkeeping burdens for the regulated community. In addition to
savings from elimination of duplication, EPA expects to find more savings through a
process of consulting closely with industry and public interest groups.
EPA is considering several amendments related to the Toxic Release
Inventory (TRI) which will reduce the reporting burden. Since the beginning of TRI,
EPA has deleted or modified 16 chemical listings, including several which were
completed this year. Actions have been taken recently on copper pigments and butyl
benzyl phthalate. Additional actions are expected before the end of the year for sulfuric
acid, hydrochloric acid, acetone, and ethylene glycol. EPA also intends to complete a
hazard assessment for all those chemicals on the original TRI list that was provided by
Congress, deleting those that do not meet the TRI listing criteria. In addition, there are
several technical amendments under development. These include the revision of the
Form R Guidance and Instructions and a redesign of the form. Together these
amendments are expected to reduce the overall TRI reporting burden by around 8%,
with the simplification and streamlining amendments associated with Form R possibly
reducing the burden further.
10
-------
Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Stakeholder consultations have been and will continue to be a key element in
this program's regulatory review. These consultations have assisted the Agency in
identifying numerous opportunities to revise rules to make them clearer, less
redundant, and more flexible. The Agency intends to respond aggressively to
stakeholder comments." Several Agency projects in waste programs have the potential
to reduce information collection burdens by millions of hours annually, while
maintaining the protection of human health and the environment.
Specifically, the Agency intends to reengineer over a period of years the
complete Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) regulatory framework to
make the regulations more understandable, and wherever feasible, (1) eliminate
redundancy with other statutes and other regulations; (2) move towards performance-
based standards, and (3) foster self-implementation rather than prior approval.
To that end, the Agency is examining existing data needs and evaluating the
utility of current information collections under its Waste Information Needs (WIN)
Initiative. The WIN initiative will identify duplicative information collections and suggest
ways to eliminate or consolidate redundant collections. The Agency is also examining
the possibility of using electronic transfer of hazardous waste shipment information in
lieu of paper manifest forms. Elimination of this requirement alone could result in a
burden reduction of millions of hours annually.
EPA also plans to redefine solid waste under RCRA which will resolve
jurisdictional issues over secondary materials, simplify the regulatory framework to
make it easier for both regulators and the regulated community to understand whether
they are subject to RCRA, and eliminate current disincentives to the safe recycling of
hazardous waste.
In addition, the Agency plans to resolve problems with the current RCRA
corrective action program through the Hazardous Waste Identification Rule (HWIR) for
contaminated media by removing large volumes of cleanup wastes from RCRA Subtitle
C regulations altogether, and by creating a more common-sense regulatory structure
for those hazardous cleanup wastes that remain regulated under Subtitle C.
EPA intends to resolve problems associated with the "mixture and derived from"
rules under RCRA. These regulations currently classify as hazardous secondary
materials with very low concentrations of hazardous constituents if these materials are
derived from the treatment of a listed hazardous waste.
The Agency will also streamline the RCRA permit process by examining and
ultimately implementing a range of options from self-implementing permits and general
11
-------
facility permits to more timely RCRA treatment, storage and disposal permits.
The Agency's Underground Storage Tank (LIST) Program is committed to
evaluate ways to modify the state approval process so that roadblocks to the approval
of state programs are removed. In addition, the Agency, together with its stakeholders,
is interested in exploring options for approving Native American Tribes to administer
the LIST program in lieu of the Federal program. These initiatives will help empower
States and Tribes to operate programs that are tailored to their own environmental
needs.
The Agency's Superfund program has identified and intends to move forward
with three initiatives that have the potential to reduce information collection burdens by
approximately 400,000 hours annually.
In particular, the Agency is proposing to streamline the Superfund Technical
Assistance Grants (TAGs) program, which aNows the Agency to give up to $50,000 to
citizens' groups representing populations affected by Superfund sites in their
communities. Specifically, the Agency will streamline the grant forms to simplify the
grant application process and reduce reporting burdens.
The Agency is also committed to simplifying and streamlining State and Local
Government Reimbursement forms, which will allow the Agency to reimburse State and
local governments more rapidly for emergency actions taken to respond to releases of
hazardous substances into the environment.
In addition to these efforts to reduce information collection burdens significantly,
other regulatory changes to the Superfund program may result from the enactment of
new Superfund legislation later this year. While awaiting Congressional action on a
new law, however, EPA is aggressively implementing the Superfund administrative
reforms that Administrator Browner announced in February of this year. These reforms
are designed to improve the pace, cost, and fairness of the cleanup program while
expanding the involvement of states, tribes, and local communities. The six areas of
reform focus on enforcement fairness, economic redevelopment, community
involvement and outreach, environmental justice, consistent program implementation,
and state empowerment. These reforms go a long way toward achieving the Agency's
goals of a faster, fairer, and more efficient Superfund.
the Agency's Oil Program also presents several regulatory reform opportunities.
The Agency commits not only to evaluate options for streamlining oil contingency plan
requirements to reduce reporting burden especially for small facilities, but also to
consider reducing spill contingency and countermeasures plan requirements for
facilities located in States with Federally equivalent requirements.
12
-------
With regard to chemical emergency preparedness, the Agency has several
initiatives planned in response to broad and extensive stakeholder involvement by
State and local governments, industry, environmental groups, citizen and community
groups. Specifically, the Agency intends to raise the release reporting levels for over
200 chemicals under section 304 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-
KnowAct(EPCRA).
In addition, the Agency plans to provide State Emergency Response
Commissions with greater flexibility to determine what information needs to be
submitted by reporting facilities; and provide facilities with greater flexibility for
submitting Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs) under section 311 of EPCRA.
Finally, the Agency has investigated the redundancies associated with the
contingency planning requirements of various environmental regulatory programs. An
interagency workgroup has been formed to draft "one plan" guidance by this Summer.
The goal of this effort is to develop a consolidated common sense approach to
implementing multiple contingency requirements under multiple statutes and across
government agencies.
Legislative Changes Needed
In addition to the major regulation reform activities identified above, the Agency
has identified a number of legislative changes which, if adopted by Congress, could
provide for significant burden relief for the regulated community and economic benefit
to the nation.
Although the Agency is aggressively implementing Superfund administrative
reforms, much more could be done if Congress would act on a new Superfund law. If
the Administration's bill had passed last year, common sense reforms would have
provided regulatory relief and ensured that the Superfund program was implemented in
a smarter, cleaner, cheaper way. For example, the Administration's bill contained
provisions which would have reduced the cost of Superfund cleanups by 25% by
eliminating the preference for permanence, narrowing the treatment requirement to "hot
spots," eliminating "relevant and appropriate requirements" in ARARs, and ensuring
future land use was a part of cleanup decisions.
The Administration's bill would also enhance the role that States play in
Superfund and eliminates state-federal overlap in authority. The proposed Act would
provide federal cleanup funds for referred sites and authorized programs through a
cooperative agreement with the State. These proposals would:
o Reduce overlapping authority and responsibility by establishing the
principle that only one governmental entity would have responsibility for
13
-------
each site. This would reduce the cost and duration of cleanups.
o Enhance efficiency of th-j program by bringing more authority to the states
who are closer to the p, jblem and usually are first to identify the need for
action.
o Provide federal cleanup funds to the States as they assume more
responsibility.
EPA proposed the Performance Partnership Grants Act for introduction this year
in Congress. This legislation would authorize the EPA Administrator to allow States
and Indian Tribes to consolidate funds for numerous existing media-specific or
multimedia grants into one or more Performance Partnership grants.
Specifically, the Performance Partnership Grant legislation would enable States
and Indian Tribes to:
o Shift resources as needed, to address efficiently and effectively
environmental priorities for the State or Tribe.
o Consolidate planning, monitoring and inspection activities.
o Reduce administrative requirements by permitting a single grant
application and work plan, combined State match and maintenance of
effort requirements, combined reporting requirements and simplified
accounting.
Passage of this legislation would enable EPA to provide a more rational and effective
State and tribal grant program and would lead tc a reinvention of the current
regulations at 40 CFR Part 35, Subpart A.
One of the major initiatives of the President's "Reinventing Environmental
Regulation" plan called for the Agency to begin this Spring a multi-stakeholder process
to identify a legislative package of "rifle shot" reforms to fix provisions of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) that currently result in high costs and marginal
environmental benefit. For example, the Agency has identified RCRA land disposal
restrictions as a potential "rifle shot" reform. The land disposal restrictions prevent the
disposal of hazardous waste on the land until levels of treatment are met which ensure
that short-term and long-term threats to human health and the environment are
minimized. For some wastes, legislative requirements lead to costly treatment of the
waste's hazardous constituents to levels below those which the Agency considers
necessary to protect human health and the environment.
14
-------
In addition to EPA's many regulatory reforms in areas related to the Clean Water
Act, much more could be accomplished if Congress would act on Agency
recommendations. The Administration proposed an aggressive package of Clean
Water Act Reforms to the 103rd Congress to accelerate the nation's progress towards
clean water goals while saving businesses and taxpayers billions of dollars annually
when compared to existing statutory mandates. For example, the Agency
recommended a more targeted approach to stormwater management and more
flexibility to communities with combined sewer overflows. If these statutory changes
are implemented, savings to businesses alone could be more than $15 billion.
The Agency also recommended other provisions designed to provide increased
flexibility and efficiencies, including: (1) continued funding for the State Revolving
Loan Fund and expanded use of the funds so communities could finance a broader
array of activities to protect water quality; (2) allowing States to establish new
management frameworks that focus resources on the most critical problems in priority
watersheds to achieve and maintain water quality standards; (3) consolidating most
multiple water grant authorities into a single multi-purpose water grant; and (4)
allowing pollutant trading within a watershed to achieve cost-effective attainment of
water quality standards.
The Agency's regulatory reinvention activities under the Safe Drinking Water Act
will result in a better focused, more cost effective national drinking water safety
program. However, some important reforms can be achieved only through statutory
changes. The Administration continues to strongly support balanced reforms of the
Safe Drinking Water Act, including preventive approaches that will reduce the long
term cost of ensuring drinking water safety. For example, experience shows that the
cost of testing to verify drinking water safety could be reduced by 50-90 percent in
many States through statutory changes that encourage site-specific tailoring of
monitoring requirements. The State Revolving Fund, a State operated, federally
supported low-interest loan program, would help many communities invest in treatment
systems necessary to ensure drinking water safety. The Administration also supports
statutory changes that would encourage the use of lower-cost small system
technologies to achieve compliance with safety standards.
While EPA is not proposing major changes to the Toxic Substances Control Act,
the Agency did identify some areas where opportunities for reinvention may be
restricted by current statutory provisions. For example, a legislative amendment could
provide additional flexibility and cost savings in the rules that trigger notification and
reporting under TSCA Section 12 (b) Export Requirements. Although EPA will be
working with stakeholders to identify ways to reduce reporting and recordkeeping
burdens under the Records and Reporting on Adverse Reactions regulation, legislative
changes are needed to provide additional flexibility.
15
-------
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
TABLES
OFFICE OF WATER
-------
-------
OFFICE OF WATER
REVIEW OF TITLE 40
CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS
Part
35-
C;D;
E;H;
I;J;
K;P;
Q;
Title of Regulation
SUBCHAPTER B - GRANTS AND
OTHER FEDERAL ASSISTANCE
Grants for Construction of
Wastewater Treatment
Works; Reimbursement
Grants; Grants for Con-
struction of Treatment-
Clean Water Act; Grants
for Construction of Treat-
ment Works; Cooperative
Agreements for Protecting
and Restoring Publicly
Owned Fresh Water Lakes;
Construction Grants Pro-
gram Delegation to States;
State Water Pollution Con-
trol Revolving Funds;
Financial Assistance for
the National Estuary Pro-
gram; and General Assis-
tance Grants to Indian
Tribes (pgs. 467-635 &
678-683; 173 pgs.)
Action:
Delete/
Modify/
Study/
Retain
Delete
Action
This action would delete
Subparts C and D, which
include requirements
regarding Grants for the
Construction of Treatment
Works and Reimbursement
Grants .
Benefit
This action would
remove obsolete
provisions.
Target
Date
Final
6/95
-------
Part
121
122
122
122
Title of Regulation
SUBCHAPTER D-WATER
PROGRAMS
State Certification of
Activities Requiring a
Federal License or Permit
(pgs. 113-M.7; 4 pgs.)
EPA Administered Permit
Programs: NPDES-CWA Sec.
318, 402 & 405 (pgs. 117-
195; 78 pgs.)
Continued. . .
Continued. . .
Action:
Delete/
Modify/
Study/
Retain
Modify
Modify
Delete
Modify
Action
Consolidate NPDES Program
definitions in Parts 121,
122, 123, 124, and 125 in
one place and reference
location of definitions
in other Parts.
Revise 122.21(f) to
incorporate elements of
122. l(d) which requires
applicants for EPA-issued
permits to use EPA
application forms and
delete part 122. l(d).
Delete 122. l(g) which
merely restates specific
Clean Water Act statutory
provisions being imple-
mented in Part 122.
Revise 122. 4 (i) to
relieve new sources/
dischargers of the
obligation to demonstrate
that water quality
standards would not be
violated if the permit
issuing authority already
has that information.
Benefit
This action would
eliminate • unnec-
essary and redun-
dant provisions.
This action would
consolidate
requirements in
one place.
This action would
remove super-
fluous language
from the CFR.
This action would
reduce regulatory
burden on
permittees.
Target
Date
NPRM
12/95
Final
6/96
NPRM
12/95
Final
6/96
Final
6/95
NPRM
12/95
Final
6/96
-------
Part
122
122
122
122
Title of Regulation
Continued. . .
Continued. . .
Continued. . .
Continued. . .
Action:
Delete/
Modify/
Study/
Retain
Delete
Delete
Delete
Delete
Action
Delete non-POTW variance
request provision in
122.21(m)(3) since Clean
Water Act section 301 (i)
is no longer applicable.
Delete 122 . 21 (ro) (4) which
cross references Clean
Water Act section 301 (k)
which is no longer
applicable.
Delete POTW variance
request provision in
122.21(n)(2) since Clean
Water Act section 301 (i)
is no longer applicable.
Delete group application
requirements for Phase I
storm water discharges
associated with indus-
trial activity found in
122.26(c) (2) .
Benefit
This action would
remove an obso-
lete provision.
This action would
remove an obso-
lete provision.
This action would
remove an obsp-
lete provision.
This action would
remove an obso-
lete provision
since existing
Phase I sources
should either
already have
sought permit
coverage or be
waiting for EPA's
Multi-Sector
General Permit.
Target
Date
Final
6/95
Final
6/95
Final
6/95
NPRM
5/96
Final
6/97
-------
Part
122
122
122
122
Title of Regulation
Continued. . .
Continued. . .
Continued. . .
Continued. . .
Action:
Delete/
Modify/
Study/
Retain
Modify
Modify
Delete
Modify
Action
Revise Municipal Separate
Storm Sewer System
application requirements
in 122. 26 (d) to reflect
the lessons learned in
the first round of
permitting.
Revise regulations (or
issue policy) to change
existing Agency inter-
pretation of 122. 44 (a) to
allow the removal of per-
mit limits for any guide-
line-listed pollutant if
pollutant is not present
in treated effluent.
Delete provisions for
permit reopener clauses
found in 122.44(c)(l) and
(3) since they only apply
to permits issued before
6/1/84.
Revise 122.41(j) (4) to
incorporate monitoring
requirements found at
122.44(i) (l) (iv) since
both provisions are
almost identical and
delete 122.44 (i) (1) (iv) .
Benefit
This action would
streamline re-
application
requirements and
reduce related
monitoring and
reporting
requirements.
This action would
reduce monitoring
and reporting
burdens .
This action would
remove obsolete
provisions.
This action would
eliminate redun-
dant provisions.
Target
Date
NPRM
5/96
Final
6/97
NPRM
12/95
Final
6/96
NPRM
12/95
Final
6/96
NPRM
12/95
Final
6/96
-------
Part
Title of Regulation
Action:
Delete/
Modify/
Study/
Retain
Action
Benefit
Target
Date
122
Continued...
Study
(Likely
to need
change
in the
law.)
Review permit anti-back-
sliding requirements in
122.44(1) and statutory
requirements in Clean
Water Act sections 402(o)
and 303(d)(4) for stream-
lining opportunities;
this action would likely
require changes in the
law.
This action could
simplify
procedures.
No
target
date;
would
need
change
in the
law.
122
Continued,
Delete
Delete the provision in
122.46(d) related to the
duration of permits.
This action would
remove an obso-
lete provision.
Final
6/95
122
Continued.
Issue
Imple-
menting
Policy/
Guidance
Study approaches for
reducing the current
level of NPDES monitor-
ing, reporting and record
keeping and issue imple-
menting policy/guidance
for 122.48, to reduce the
frequency of compliance
monitoring and related
record-keeping and
reporting in specific
situations.
This action would
reduce permittee
monitoring and
reporting
burdens.
Draft
12/95
Final
6/96
-------
Part
122
122
Title of Regulation
Continued. . .
Continued. . .
Action:
Delete/
Modify/
Study/
Retain
Study
(Likely
to need
change
in the
law.)
Study
(Likely
to need
change
in the
law.)
Action
Examine NPDES Program in
light of National
Historic Preservation Act
(NHPA) consultation
requirements and consider
whether to revise NPDES
consultation procedures
or recommend Clean Water
Act amendments to modify
the applicability of NHPA
requirements to the NPDES
Program. This action
would likely require a
change in the law.
Examine NPDES Program in
light of Endangered
Species Act (ESA)
consultation requirements
and consider whether to
revise NPDES consultation
procedures or recommend
Clean Water Act amend-
ments to modify the
applicability of ESA
requirements to the NPDES
Program. This action
would likely require a
change in the law.
Benefit
This action could
potentially re-
sult in a sub-
stantial reduc-
tion in burden on
both EPA and the
regulated
community.
This action could
potentially re-
sult in a sub-
stantial reduc-
tion in burden on
both EPA and the
regulated
community.
Target
Date
No
target
date;
likely
to
need
change
in the
law.
No
target
date ;
likely
to
need
change
in the
law.
-------
Part
122
122
122
Title of Regulation
Continued. . .
*
Continued
Continued. . .
Action:
Delete/
Modify/
Study/
Retain
Modify
Modify
Delete
Action
Revise and consolidate
existing industrial
facility permit applica-
tion forms and require-
ments, streamline the
application process by
allowing the use of
existing data and avoid-
ing unnecessary report-
ing, and examine elec-
tronic data submission.
Revise and consolidate
existing municipal
facility permit applica-
tion forms and require-
ments, streamline the
application process by
allowing the use of
existing data and avoid-
ing unnecessary report-
ing, and examine elec-
tronic data submission.
Remove provision in
122.62(a) (14) for permit
modifications.
Benefit
This action
should minimize
the need for
repeated requests
for additional
information and
reduce reporting
burdens, partic-
ularly for small
entities.
This action
should minimize
the need for
repeated requests
for additional
information and
reduce reporting
burdens, partic-
ularly for small
entities.
This action would
remove an obso-
lete provision.
Target
Date
NPRM
1/96
Final
1/98
NPRM
9/95
Final
6/97
Final
6/95
-------
Part
122
122
122
Title of Regulation
Continued. . .
Continued. . .
Continued. . .
Action:
Delete/
Modify/
Study/
Retain
Delete
Modify
Delete
Action
Remove provision in
122.62(a) (17) which
allows modification of
permits effective on or
after 3/13/82, if the
modification is applied
for no later than
1/24/85.
Revise permit minor
modification provisions
in 122.63 to add permit
revisions that could be
considered "minor" and
therefore not subject to
public notice
requirements.
Delete permit minor
modification provision in
122.63(f) since it
applied only to permits
issued between 3/3/82 and
9/26/84.
Benefit
This action would
remove an obsp-
lete provision.
This action would
provide increased
flexibility for
EPA, States, and
permittees and
would reduce the
cost of some
permit revisions.
This action would
remove an obso-
lete provision.
Target
Date
Final
6/95
NPRM
12/95
Final
6/96
Final
6/95
-------
Part
122
123
124
Title of Regulation
Continued. . .
State Program Requirements
-CWA Sec. 318, 402 & 405
(pgs. 195-220; 25 pgs.)
Procedures for Decision-
Making-NPDES/UIC/RCRA/UIC
& PSD (pgs. 220-273; 53
pgs.)
Action:
Delete/
Modify/
Study/
Retain
Modify
Delete
Modify
Action
Revise 122.64 to allow
NPDES Program Directors
to terminate a permit
without having to follow
Part 124 Decisionmaking
Procedures if the per-
mittee has permanently
terminated its entire
discharge by elimination
of its process flow.
Delete 123. 43 (b) which
requires States to
transmit copies of all
draft 'or proposed general
permits except those for
separate storm sewers to
the Director, Office of
Water Enforcement and
Permits at the same time
copies are sent to the
Regional Administrator.
Revise 124.57 and 124.60
and Subpart E to clarify
and streamline eviden-
tiary hearing procedures
for EPA- issued or termi-
nated NPDES permits.
Benefit
This action would
provide increased
flexibility for
EPA, States, and
permittees and
would reduce the
reporting burden
for some
permittees.
This action would
eliminate redun-
dant reporting
requirements .
This action would
clarify and
streamline
evidentiary hear-
ing procedures.
Target
Date
NPRM
12/95
Final
6/96
Final
6/95
NPRM
6/96
Final
12/97
-------
Part
124
124
124
Title of Regulation
Continued. . .
Continued. . .
Continued. . .
Action:
Delete/
Modify/
Study/
Retain
Delete
Delete
Delete
Action
Delete 124. 57 (b) and
Subpart F Non-Adversary
Panel Hearings since such
hearings do not appear to
have ever been used.
Delete 124.58 which
requires the Regional
Administrator to send
copies of all draft
general permits except
those for separate storm
sewers and their
administrative records to
the Deputy Assistant
Administrator for Water
Enforcement for
concurrence.
Delete Appendix A, Guide
to Decisionmaking Under
Part 124, since it is
confusing and could be
better replaced by
guidance.
Benefit
This action would
streamline the
CFR.
1
This action would
streamline the
permitting
process.
This action would
streamline the
CFR.
Target
Date
NPRM
12/95
Final
6/96
Final
6/95
NPRM
12/95
Final
6/96
10
-------
Part
125
130
Title of Regulation
Criteria & Standards for
NPDES-CWA Sec. 301 (b),
301(c), 301(g), 301(h),
301(i), 301(k), 304(e),
316(a), 316(b), 318, 402,
& 405 (pgs. 274-310; 36
pgs . >
Water Quality Planning &
Management-CWA Sec. 106,
205(g) , 205(j) , 208, 303 &
305 (pgs. 321-335; 14
pgs.)
Action:
Delete/
Modify/
Study/
Retain
Delete
Modify
Action
Delete Subpart C and J
provisions related to the
extension of compl iance
dates for facilities
installing innovative
technology since vari-
ances under sections
301 (i) and 301 (k) of the
Clean Water Act are no
longer in effect.
Eliminate obsolete
section 208 planning
requirements, consolidate
listing requirements, and
simplify reporting re-
quirements by implement-
ing a 5-year reporting
cycle instead of the
current 2-year cycle.
Benefit
This action would
remove an obso-
lete provision.
This action would
reduce State
reporting and
compliance costs.
Target
Date
Final
6/95
NPRM
2/97
Final
12/97
11
-------
Part
131
131
Title of Regulation
-
Water Quality Standards-
CWA Section 303 (c) (pgs.
336-369; 3 pgs.)
Continued. . .
Action:
Delete/
Modify/
Study/
Retain
Modify
Delete
Action
Revise Subparts A-C
(i.e., General Provi-
sions, Establishment of
Water Quality Standards
(WQS) , and Procedures for
Review and Revision of
WQS) to increase State
flexibility and improve
the Water Quality Stan-
dards Program's ability
to support a watershed/
place-based environmental
management approach.
Delete 131.35 water
quality standards (WQS)
for the Colville Indian
Reservation in the State
of Washington when the
Tribe, which is currently
considering applying for
authority to administer
the WQS Program, submits
approved Tribal WQS
(after early 1996) .
Benefit
This action would
result in a more
efficient program
and increased
flexibility for
the States.
-
This action would
delete obsolete
requirements .
Target
Date
ANPRM
1/96
NPRM
12/96
Final
12/97
6 mos.
after
Tribe
adopts
WQS
12
-------
Part
131
131
-
Title of Regulation
Continued. . .
Continued. . .
Action:
Delete/
Modify/
Study/
Retain
Modify
Delete
Action
Revise 131.36 toxics
criteria for metals
established by EPA for
States not complying with
Clean Water Act section
303(c)(2)(B) to express
the criteria as
"dissolved" metals
instead of "total
recoverable" metals.
Delete 131.37 water
quality standards (WQS)
for surface waters of the
Sacramento and San
Joaquin Rivers and San
Francisco Bay and Delta
as soon as California
adopts State standards
which are approved by
EPA; California is
expected to adopt the
required standards by
12/95.
Benefit
This action would
make the State
standards consis-
tent with more
recent Agency
policy regarding
metals criteria
and would reduce
the cost of com-
pliance with
standards.
This action would
delete obsolete
requirements .
Target
Date
Inte-
rim
Final
4/95
Final
12/96
6 mos .
after
Calif.
adopts
WQS
-------
Part
136
140
140
Title of Regulation
Guidelines Establishing
Test Procedures for the
Analysis of" Pollutants
(pgs. 377-655; 78 pgs.)
Marine Sanitation Device
Standard-CWA Sec. 312
(pgs. 655-658; 3 pgs.)
Continued. . .
Action:
Delete/
Modify/
Study/
Retain
Study
Modify
Delete
Action
Examine the possibility
of removing all analytic
methods from the CFR and
incorporating them in the
regulations by reference
and making them available
to States, labs, and
others through means
other than the CFR.
Revise to update require-
ments promulgated in 1976
to reflect subsequent re-
visions to the Clean
Water Act and Coast Guard
regulations and to elimi-
nate obsolete require-
ments; revisions to in-
clude clarification of
application requirements
for States wanting to
establish no discharge
zones for marine vessels
in areas designated for
drinking water intakes;
140. 3(a) (2) , 140. 3(b)-
(e), 140(3) (h), and
140. 4 (b) may be affected.
Delete 140. 3 (h) since all
effective dates have
passed.
Benefit
This action would
significantly re-
duce the number
of pages in the
CFR; other dis-
tribution methods
are expected to
be well received
by those who use
the methods.
This action would
make the regula-
tions easier for
States, munici-
palities, other
Federal Agencies
and the general
public to under-
stand and use.
This action would
delete an obso-
lete provision.
Target
Date
No
target
date;
need
Fed.
Regis.
Office
agree-
ment.
NPRM
9/95
Final
3/96
Final
6/95
14
-------
Part
141
141
141
Title of Regulation
National Primary Drinking
Water Regulations-SDWA
(pgs. 658-794; 136 pgs.)
Continued. . .
Continued. . .
Action:
Delete/
Modify/
Study/
Retain
Modify
Delete
Modify
Action
Reorganize/reformat the
entire Part to make it
easier for public water
systems to understand and
comply with and for State
officials to enforce.
Revise 141. 11 (b) to
delete everything except
arsenic.
Revise 141.24 to raise
the contaminant level
which requires increased/
repeat synthetic organic
chemical monitoring.
Benefit
This action would
not change any of
the reguirements
but would make
them easier to
understand and is
expected to re-
duce the number
of pages in the
CFR.
This action would
delete obsolete
requirements .
This action would
reduce monitoring
and reporting
requirements.
Target
Date
NPRM
3/96
Final
6/97
Final
6/95
NPRM
9/95
Final
9/96
-------
Part
141
Title of Regulation
Continued. . .
Action:
Delete/
Modify/
Study/
Retain
Modify
(Would
need
change
in the
law to
maximize
stream-
lining. )
Action
Comprehensive review of
141.23-25, 141.31,
141.33, 141.35, and
141.40-41 monitoring and
related record keeping
and reporting require-
ments to identify oppor-
tunities for reducing the
monitoring and reporting
burden associated with
both regulated and unreg-
ulated contaminants;
revisions to the Safe
Drinking Water Act would
be needed to maximize
streamlining.
Benefit
This action would
identify oppor-
tunities for re-
ducing monitor-
ing, reporting,
and record keep-
ing requirements.
Target
Date
NPRM
12/96
Final
12/98
16
-------
Part
141
141
Title of Regulation
Continued. . .
"
Continued. . .
Action:
Delete/
Modify/
Study/
Retain
Modify
(Would
need
change
in the
law to
maximize
stream-
lining. )
Delete
Action
Revise 141.32 public
notification requirements
for systems which do not
comply with drinking
water standards to con-
solidate/simplify these
requirements to make them
more performance-based
and to allow States flex-
ibility to design public
notice programs that
would permit systems to
deliver notice using
methods most likely to
reach the affected public
in a timely and effective
manner; revisions to the
Safe Drinking Water Act
would be needed to
maximize streamlining.
Delete 141. 23 (a) (4) (i)
(Table) MCL for nickel,
141.32(e) (56) public
notice language for
nickel, 141. 51 (b) MCLG
for nickel, and
141.62(b) (14) MCL for
nickel.
Benefit
This action could
provide States
flexibility to
design more
effective • public
notification pro-
grams, improve
risk communica-
tion, reduce pro-
gram implementa-
tion costs, and
increase program
compliance.
This action would
delete obsolete
requirements in
response to the
Court which
vacated the
requirements and
remanded them to
the Agency.
Target
Date
NPRM
12/96
Final
12/98
Final
6/95
17
-------
Part
141
141
142
142
144
Title of Regulation
Continued. . .
Continued. . .
National Primary Drinking
Water Regulations Imple-
mentation-SDWA (pgs. 794-
835; 41 pgs.)
Continued. . .
Underground Injection Con-
trol Program-SDWA (pgs.
839-895; 56 pgs. )
Action:
Delete/
Modify/
Study/
Retain
Delete
Modify
Delete
Modify
Delete
Action
Delete 141.34 special
public notice require-
ments pertaining to lead.
Revise 141.62 key to the
Table of Best Available
Technologies for Inor-
ganic Compounds to revise
#10 "Chlorine" to read
"Alkaline Chlorination
ph>8 . 5 . "
Delete 142.30 procedures
for Federal enforcement
since it merely repeats
the Safe Drinking Water
Act section 1414
requirements.
Revise 142.62 key to the
Table of Best Available
Technologies for Inor-
ganic Compounds to revise
#10 "Chlorine" to read
"Alkaline Chlorination
pH>8 . 5 . "
Delete historical dead-
lines, Class V assess-
ment, and Class IV plug-
ging plan requirements in
144.15 and 144.23(b) (2) .
Benefit
This action would
streamline
reporting
requirements.
This action would
correct an
existing error in
the CFR.
This action would
remove super-
fluous language
from the CFR.
This action would
correct an exist-
ing error in the
CFR.
This action would
remove obsolete
requirements .
Target
Date
Final
6/95
NPRM
8/96
Final
8/98
NPRM
12/96
Final
12/98
NPRM
8/96
Final
8/98
Final
6/95
18
-------
Part
146
148
149
Title of Regulation
Underground Injection Con-
trol Program: Criteria &
Standards-SDWA (pgs. 907-
938; 31 pgs.)
Hazardous Waste Injection
Restrictions-SDWA (pgs.
1035-1044; 9 pgs. )
Sole Source Aquifers-SDWA
(pgs. 1044-1048; 4 pgs.)
Action:
Delete/
Modify/
Study/
Retain
Delete
Delete
Study
(Would
need
change
in the
law.)
Action
Delete the requirements
in 146.52 related to the
UIC Class V inventory and
assessment.
Delete temporary excep-
tion to the hazardous
waste deadline in
148. l(c) (4) .
Examine possibility of
deleting criteria for
identifying critical
aquifer protection areas
in Subpart A since the
demonstration program for
which they were developed
was never funded and
guidance for the volun-
tary Sole Source Aquifer
Program includes most of
them; revisions to the
Safe Drinking Water Act
would be needed.
Benefit
This action would
remove obsolete
requirements .
This action would
delete an obso-
lete provision.
This action could
help prevent con-
fusion related to
the funding pro-
visions described
in this Part.
Target
Date
Final
6/95
Final
6/95
No
target
date ;
would
need
change
in the
law.
J'J
-------
Part
149
225
Title of Regulation
Continued. . .
SUBCHAPTER H-OCEAN DUMPING
COE Dredged Material
Permits-MPRSA (pgs. 167-
168; l pg.)
Action:
Delete/
Modify/
Study/
Retain
Study
•
Modify
Action
Examine possibility of
deleting Subpart B provi-
sions for the review of
Federally-assisted
projects in the Edwards
Aquifer area since the 64
other designated sole
source aquifer areas did
not require similar regu-
lations and the provi-
sions are included in
12/89 Guidelines for the
Regions.
Revise to reflect statu-
tory amendments, clarify
environmental effects
criteria to be used in
evaluating permit re-
quests (including speci-
fying standards for waiv-
ing criteria and defining
appropriate methods for
isolating contaminated
sediments from the marine
environment) , conform
provisions for the ocean
dumping of dredged mate-
rial in Parts 225 and
227, and clarify and
streamline requirements.
Benefit
This action could
reduce the length
of the CFR.
,
This action would
streamline re-
quirements and
resolve issues
that have previ-
ously delayed
permit issuance.
Target
Date
NPRM
12/9b
Final
3/96
NPRM
12/95
Final
12/96
20
-------
Part
227
228
Title of Regulation
-
Criteria for the Evalua-
tion of Permit Applica-
tions for Ocean Dumping of
Materials-MPRSA (pgs. 168-
181; 13 pgs.)
Criteria for the Manage-
ment of Disposal Sites for
Ocean Dumping-MPRSA (pgs.
181-202; 21 pgs.)
Action:
Delete/
Modify/
Study/
Retain
Modify
Modify
Action
Revise to address statu-
tory changes and up-date
to conform to Part 225.
Revise to address statu-
tory changes, provide
criteria for the desig-
nation and management of
sites used for the dump-
ing of dredged material,
streamline criteria for
site monitoring and the
development of site
management and surveil-
lance plans, and address
Court decision challeng-
ing the use of different
criteria for dredged and
non-dredge material.
Benefit
This action would
clarify expecta-
tions regarding
requirements
resulting- from
statutory
changes.
This action would
clarify and
streamline
criteria and
streamline
information
collection and
application
requirements,
thereby reducing
associated paper-
work burdens and
site assessment
costs.
Target
Date
NPRM
12/95
Final
12/96
NPRM
12/95
Final
12/96
21
-------
Part
403
Title of Regulation
SUBCHAPTER N-EFFLUENT
GUIDELINES & STANDARDS
General Pretreatment Regs
for Existing & New Sources
of Pollution-CWA (pgs. 8-
54; 46 pgs.)
Action:
Delete/
Modify/
Study/
Retain
Delete
Action
Delete 403. l(c) compli-
ance deadlines for sub-
mittals related to vari-
ous pretreatment cate-
gories; 403. 5 (f) pre-
treatment standards com-
pliance deadlines; 403.8
(f)(l)(vi)(A) penalty
authority compliance
deadline; 403. 10 (b) / (d)
program ap-proval compli-
ance deadlines; 403. 12 (b)
report substitution re-
quirement; 403.13(g)(2)
(i) FDF application sub-
mittal deadline; Appendix
B list of 65 priority
pollutants also contained
in 401.15; Appendix C
list of industrial
categories subject to
pretreatment standards.
Benefit
This action would
remove obsolete
and redundant
provisions.
Target
Date
Final
6/95
22
-------
Part
403
403
Title of Regulation
Continued.
Continued. . .
Action:
Delete/
Modify/
Study/
Retain
Modify
Modify
Action
Revise 403.18 procedures
for developing and main-
taining approved publicly
owned treatment works
(POTW) pretreatment pro-
grams to streamline re-
quirements for elements
of the program included
in NPDES permits, elimi-
nate the need for permit
revision every time
insignificant revisions
are made to a POTW's
program, and reduce the
number of changes to POTW
programs that require EPA
or State approval.
Revise general pretreat-
ment requirements to
eliminate unnecessary
requirements, possibly
allow implementation of
the program directly
through the publicly
owned treatment works
NPDES permit, and provide
exclusions or variable
requirements for numerous
small facilities that
contribute insignif iciant
amounts of pollution.
Benefit
This action would
streamline exist-
ing requirements,
reduce State and
EPA backlogs of
pretreatment pro-
gram changes
needing approval,
and reduce paper-
work and
reporting.
This action would
simplify program
implementation ,
improve program
efficiencies, and
eliminate duplic-
ative reporting
requirements.
Target
Date
NPRM
9/95
Final
9/96
NPRM
3/96
Final
3/98
2 J
-------
Part
405-
471
405
Title of Regulation
These Parts contain the
Effluent Guidelines for 51
industries (pgs. 54-716 &
5-670; 1,327 pgs.)
Dairy Products Processing
Point Source Category-CWA
(pgs. 54-83; 29 pgs.)
Action:
Delete/
Modify/
Study/
Retain
Modify
Delete
Action
Make clarifying revisions
(e.g. , standardize table
headings, definitions,
etc.,) and restructure
guidelines, through the
increased use of tables;
a}l of the effluent
guidelines for the Parts
and industrial categories
listed below will be
included in the
restructuring .
Delete reference(s) to
fundamentally different
factor variance proce-
dures and refer to Part
125 procedures; replace
references to Part 128
pretreatment standards
with Part 403 General
Pretreatment Regs; and
restructure as described
above.
Benefit
This action would
not change any
requirements but
would signifi-
cantly reduce the
number of CFR
pages and make
the guidelines
easier to read
and understand.
This action would
delete redundant
provisions and
correct outdated
provisions.
Target
Date
NPRM
5/9b
Final
11/96
Final
6/95
-------
Part
406
407
Title of Regulation
Grain Mills Point Source
Category-CWA (pgs. 83-103;
20 pgs.)
Canned & Preserved Fruits
& Vegetables Processing
Point Source Category-CWA
(pgs. 103-125; 22 pgs.)
Action:
Delete/
Modify/
Study/
Retain
Delete
Delete
Action
Delete reference (s) to
fundamentally different
factor variance proce-
dures and refer to Part
125 procedures; replace
references to Part 128
pretreatment standards
with Part 403 General
Pretreatment Regs; and
restructure as described
above.
Delete reference (s) to
fundamentally different
factor variance proce-
dures and refer to Part
125 procedures; replace
references to Part 128
pretreatment standards
with Part 403 General
Pretreatroent Regs; and
restructure as described
above .
Benefit
This action would
delete redundant
provisions and
correct outdated
provisions.
This action would
delete redundant
provisions and
correct outdated
provisions.
Target
Date
Final
6/95
Final
6/9b
-------
Part
408
409
410
Title of Regulation
Canned & Preserved Seafood
Processing Point Source
Category-CWA (pgs. 125-
196; 71 pgs.)
Sugar Processing Point
Source Category-CWA (pgs.
196-210; 14 pgs.)
Textile Mills Point Source
Category-CWA (pgs. 210-
227; 17 pgs.)
Action:
Delete/
Modify/
Study/
Retain
Delete
Delete
Modify
Action
Delete reference (s) to
fundamentally different
factor variance proce-
dures and refer to Part
125 procedures; replace
references to Part 128
pretreatment standards
with Part 403 General
Pretreatment Regs ; and
restructure as described
above .
Delete reference (s) to
fundamentally different
factor variance proce-
dures and refer to Part
125 procedures; replace
references to Part 128
pretreatment standards
with Part 403 General
Pretreatment Regs; and
restructure as described
above .
Restructure as described
above in description of
action for Parts 405-471.
Benefit
This action would
delete redundant
provisions and
correct outdated
provisions.
This action would
delete redundant
provisions and
correct outdated
provisions.
This action would
reduce the number
of CFR pages.
Target
Date
Final
6/95
Final
6/95
NPRM
5/96
Final
11/96
-------
Part
Title of Regulation
Action:
Delete/
Modify/
Study/
Retain
Action
Benefit
Target
Date
411 Cement Manufacturing Point
Source Category-CWA (pgs.
228-234; 6 pgs.)
Delete
Delete reference(s) to
fundamentally different
factor variance proce-
dures and refer to Part
125 procedures; replace
references to Part 128
pretreatment standards
with Part 403 General
Pretreatment Regs; and
restructure as described
above.
This action would
delete redundant
provisions and
correct outdated
provisions.
Final
6/9b
412 Feedlots Point Source
Category-CWA (pgs. 234-
239; 5 pgs.)
Delete
Delete reference(s) to
fundamentally different
factor variance proce-
dures and refer to Part
125 procedures; replace
references to Part 128
pretreatment standards
with Part 403 General
Pretreatment Regs; and
restructure as described
above.
This action would
delete redundant
provisions and
correct outdated
provisions.
Final
6/9b
413 Electroplating Point
Source Category-CWA (pgs.
239-254; 15 pgs.)
Modify
Restructure as described
above in description of
action for Parts 405-471
This action would
reduce the number
of CFR pages.
NPRM
5/96
Final
11/96
414 Organic Chemicals, Plas-
tics & Synthetic Fibers-
CWA (pgs. 254-277; 23
pgs.)
Modify
Restructure as described
above in description of
action for Parts 405-471,
This action would
reduce the number
of CRF pages.
NPRM
5/96
Final
11/96
21
-------
Part
415
417
418
419
Title of Regulation
Inorganic Chemicals Manu-
facturing Point Source
Category-CWA (pgs. 277-
335; 58 pgs.)
Soap & Detergent Manufac-
turing Point Source Cate-
gory-CWA (pgs. 335-383; 48
pgs.)
Fertilizer Manufacturing
Point Source Category-CWA
(pgs. 383-401; 18 pgs.)
Petroleum Refining Point
Source Category-CWA (pgs.
401-436; 35 pgs.)
Action:
Delete/
Modify/
Study/
Retain
Modify
Delete
Delete
Modify
Action
Restructure as described
above in description of
action for Parts 405-471.
Delete reference (s) to
fundamentally different
factor variance proce-
dures and refer to Part
125 procedures; replace
references to Part 128
pretreatment standards
with Part 403 General
Pretreatment Regs; and
restructure as described
above.
Delete reference (s) to
fundamentally different
factor variance proce-
dures and refer to Part
125 procedures; replace
references to Part 128
pretreatment standards
with Part 403 General
Pretreatment Regs; and
restructure as described
above .
Restructure as described
above in description of
action for Parts 405-471.
Benefit
This action would
reduce the number
of CFR pages.
This action would
delete redundant
provisions and
correct outdated
provisions.
This action would
delete redundant
provisions and
correct outdated
provisions.
This action would
reduce the number
of CFR pages.
Taryet
Date
NPRM
5/96
Final
11/96
Final
6/95
Final
6/95
NPRM
5/96
Final
11/96
-------
Part
420
421
422
423
424
Title of Regulation
Iron & Steel Manufacturing
Point Source Category-CWA
(pgs. 437-499; 62 pgs.)
Nonferrous Metals Manufac-
turing Point Source Cate-
gory-CWA (pgs. 499-685; 86
pgs.)
Phosphate Manufacturing
Point Source Category-CWA
(pgs. 685-694; 9 pgs.)
Steam Electric Power Gene-
rating Point Source Cate-
gory-CWA (pgs. 694-703; 9
pgs.)
Ferroalloy Manufacturing
Point Source Category-CWA
(pgs. 703-716; 13 pgs.)
Action:
Delete/
Modify/
Study/
Retain
Modify
Modify
Modify
Modify
Delete
Action
Restructure as described
above in description of
action for Parts 405-471.
Restructure as described
above in description of
action for Parts 405-471.
Restructure as described
above in description of
action for Parts 405-471.
Restructure as described
above in description of
action for Parts 405-471.
Delete reference (s) to
fundamentally different
factor variance proce-
dures and refer to Part
125 procedures; replace
references to Part 128
pretreatment standards
with Part 403 General
Pretreatment Regs; and
restructure as described
above .
Benefit
This action would
reduce the number
of CFR pages.
This action would
reduce the number
of CFR pages.
This action would
reduce the number
of CFR pages.
This action would
reduce the number
of CFR pages.
This action would
delete redundant
provisions and
correct outdated
provisions.
Tarqet
Date
NPRM
5/96
Final
11/96
NPRM
5/96
Final
11/96
NPRM
5/96
Final
11/96
NPRM
5/96
Final
11/96
Final
6/95
-------
Part
425
426
427
Title of Regulation
Leather Tanning & Finish-
ing Point Source Category-
CWA (pgs. 5-26; 21 pgs.)
Glass Manufacturing Point
Source Category-CWA (pgs.
26-53; 27 pgs.)
Asbestos Manufacturing
Point Source Category-CWA
(pgs. 53-72; 19 pgs.)
Action:
Delete/
Modify/
Study/
Retain
Modify
Delete
Delete
Action
Revise to provide local
POTWs the authority to
decide the most appro-
priate pH limits for
specific facilities
discharging to their
systems; and restructure
as described above.
Delete reference (s) to
fundamentally different
factor variance proce-
dures and refer to Part
125 procedures; replace
references to Part 128
pretreatment standards
with Part 403 General
Pretreatment Regs; and
restructure as described
above .
Delete reference (s) to
fundamentally different
factor variance proce-
dures and refer to Part
125 procedures; replace
references to Part 128
pretreatment standards
with Part 403 General
Pretreatroent Regs; and
restructure as described
above.
Benefit
This action would
provide increased
flexibility for
decision making •
at the Ipcal
level and could
reduce industry
compliance costs.
This action would
delete redundant
provisions and
correct outdated
provisions.
This action would
delete redundant
provisions and
correct outdated
provisions.
Target
Date
NPRM
9/9b
Final
5/96
Final
6/95
Final
6/95
JO
-------
Part
428
429
430
431
Title of Regulation
Rubber Manufacturing Point
Source Category-CWA (pgs.
72-100; 28 pgs.)
Timber Products Processing
Point Source Category-CWA
(pgs. 100-117; 17 pgs.)
Pulp, Paper & Paperboard
Point Source Category-CWA
(pgs. 117-199; 82 pgs.)
Builders' Paper & Board
Mills Point Source
Category-CWA (pgs. 199-
202; 3 pgs.)
Action:
Delete/
Modify/
Study/
Retain
Delete
Modify
Modify
Modify
Action
Delete reference (s) to
fundamentally different
factor variance proce-
dures and refer to Part
125 procedures; replace
references to Part 128
pretreatraent standards
with Part 403 General
Pretreatment Regs; and
restructure as described
above.
Restructure as described
above in description of
action for Parts 405-471.
Restructure as described
above in description of
action for Parts 405-471.
Restructure as described
above in description of
action for Parts 405-471.
Benefit
This action would
delete redundant
provisions and
correct outdated
provisions.
This action would
reduce the number
of CFR pages.
This action would
reduce the number
of CFR pages.
This action would
reduce the number
of CFR pages.
Target
Date
Final
6/9b
NPRM
5/96
Final
11/96
NPRM
5/96
Final
11/96
NPRM
5/96
Final
11/96
Jl
-------
Part
432
433
434
435
436
Title of Regulation
Meat Products Point Source
Category-CWA (pgs. 202-
232; 30 pgs.)
Metal Finishing Point
Source Category-CWA (pgs.
232-237; 5 pgs.)
Coal Mining Point Source
Category-CWA (pgs. 237-
248; 11 pgs.)
Oil & Gas Extraction Point
Source Category-CWA (pgs.
249-265; 16 pgs.)
Mineral Mining & Process-
ing Point Source Category-
CWA (pgs. 265-288; 23
pgs . )
Action:
Delete/
Modify/
Study/
Retain
Delete
Modify
Modify
Modify
Delete
Action
Delete reference (s) to
fundamentally different
factor variance proce-
dures and refer to Part
125 procedures; replace
references to Part 128
pretreatment standards
with Part 403 General
Pretreatment Regs; and
restructure as described
above .
Restructure as described
above in description of
action for Parts 405-471.
Restructure as described
above in description of
action for Parts 405-471.
Restructure as described
above in description of
action for Parts 405-471.
Delete reference (s) to
fundamentally different
factor variance proce-
dures and refer to Part
125 procedures and re-
structure as described
above .
Benefit
This action would
delete redundant
provisions and
correct outdated
provisions.
This action would
reduce the number
of CFR pages.
This action would
reduce the number
of CFR pages.
This action would
reduce the number
of CFR pages.
This action would
delete redundant
provisions.
Target
Date
Final
6/95
NPRM
5/96
Final
11/96
NPRM
5/96
Final
11/96
NPRM
5/96
Final
11/96
Final
6/95
-------
Part
Title of Regulation
Action:
Delete/
Modify/
Study/
Retain
Action
Benefit
Target
Date
439 Pharmaceutical Manufactur-
ing Point Source Category-
CWA (pgs. 289-307; 18
pgs.)
Modify
Restructure as described
above in description of
action for Parts 405-:471,
This action would
reduce the number
of CFR pages.
NPRM
Final
11/96
440 Ore Mining & Dressing
Point Source Category-CWA
(pgs. 307-332; 25 pgs.)
Modify
Restructure as described
above in description of
action for Parts 405-471.
This action would
reduce the number
of CFR pages.
NPRM
5/96
Final
11/96
443 Paving & Roofing Materials
(Tars & Asphalt) Point
Source Category-CWA (pgs.
332-339; 7 pgs.)
Delete
Delete reference(s) to
fundamentally different
factor variance proce-
dures and refer to Part
125 procedures; replace
references to Part 128
pretreatment standards
with Part 403 General
Pretreatment Regs; and
restructure as described
above.
This action would
delete redundant
provisions and
correct outdated
provisions.
Final
6/95
446 Paint Formulating Point
Source Category-CWA (pgs.
339-341; 2 pgs.)
Delete
Delete reference(s) to
fundamentally different
factor variance proce-
dures and refer to Part
125 procedures; replace
references to Part 128
pretreatment standards
with Part 403 General
Pretreatment Regs; and
restructure as described
above.
This action would
delete redundant
provisions and
correct outdated
provisions.
Final
6/95
-------
Part
447
454
455
Title of Regulation
Ink Formulating Point
Source Category-CWA (pgs.
341-343; 2 pgs.)
Gum & Wood Chemicals Manu-
facturing Point Source
Category-CWA (pgs. 343-
348; 5 pgs.)
Pesticide Chemicals-CWA
(pgs. 348-366; 18 pgs.)
Action:
Delete/
Modify/
Study/
Retain
Delete
Delete
Delete
Action
Delete reference (s) to
fundamentally different
factor variance proce-
dures and refer to Part
125 procedures; replace
references to Part 128
pretreatment standards
with Part 403 General
Pretreatment Regs; and
restructure as described
above .
Delete reference (s) to
fundamentally different
factor variance proce-
dures and refer to Part
125 procedures and re-
structure as described
above .
Delete reference (s) to
fundamentally different
factor variance proce-
dures and refer to Part
125 procedures and re-
structure as described
above .
Benefit
This action would
delete redundant
provisions and
correct outdated
provision^.
This action would
delete redundant
provisions.
This action would
delete redundant
provisions.
Target
Date
Final
6/9b
Final
6/95
Final
6/95
-------
Part
457
458
459
Title of Regulation
Explosives Manufacturing
Point Source Category-CWA
(pgs. 366-367; 1 pg.)
Carbon Black Manufacturing
Point Source Category-CWA
(pgs. 368-373; 5 pgs.)
Photographic Point Source
Category-CWA (pgs. 373-
374; 1 pg.)
Action:
Delete/
Modify/
Study/
Retain
Delete
Delete
Delete
Action
Delete reference (s) to
fundamentally different
factor variance proce-
dures and refer to Part
125 procedures and re-
structure as described
above.
Delete reference (s) to
fundamentally different
factor variance proce-
dures and refer to Part
125 procedures; replace
references to Part 128
pretreatment standards
with Part 403 General
Pretreatment Regs; and
restructure as described
above.
Delete reference (s) to
fundamentally different
factor variance proce--
dures and refer to Part
125 procedures and re-
structure as described
above .
Benefit
This action would
delete redundant
provisions.
This action would
delete redundant
provisions and
correct outdated
provisions.
This action would
delete redundant
provisions.
Target
Date
Final
6/9b
Final
6/95
Final
6/95
-------
Part
460
461
463
464
465
466
Title of Regulation
Hospital Point Source
Category-CWA (pgs. 374-
375; 1 pg.)
Battery Manufacturing
Point Source Category-CWA
(pgs. 375-406; 31 pgs.)
Plastics Molding & Forming
Point Source Category-CWA
(pgs. 407-413; 6 pgs.)
Metal Molding & Casting
Point Source Category-CWA
(pgs. 413-459; 46 pgs.)
Coil Coating Point Source
Category-CWA (pgs. 459-
476; 17 pgs.)
Porcelain Enameling Point
Source Category-CWA (pgs.
476-483; 7 pgs.)
Action:
Delete/
Modify/
Study/
Retain
Delete
Modify
Modify
Modify
Modify
Modify
Action
Delete reference (s) to
fundamentally different
factor variance proce-
dures and refer to Part
125 procedures and re-
structure as described
above .
Restructure as described
above in description of
action for Parts 405-471.
Restructure as described
above in description of
action for Parts 405-471.
Restructure as described
above in description of
action for Parts 405-471.
Restructure as described
above in description of
action for Parts 405-471.
Restructure as described
above in description of
action for Parts 405-471.
Benefit
This action would
delete redundant
provisions.
This action would
reduce the number
of CFR pages.
This action would
reduce the number
of CFR pages.
This action would
reduce the number
of CFR pages.
This action would
reduce the number
of CFR pages.
This action would
reduce the number
of CFR pages.
Target
Date
Final
6/yb
NPRM
5/96
Final
11/96
NPRM
5/96
Final
11/96
NPRM
5/96
Final
11/96
NPRM
5/96
Final
11/96
NPRM
5/96
Final
11/96
-------
Part
Title of Regulation
Action:
Delete/
Modify/
Study/
Retain
Action
Benefit
Target
Date
467 Aluminum Forming Point
Source Category-CWA (pgs.
484-525; 41 pgs.)
Modify
Restructure as described
above in description of
action for Parts 405-471.
This action would
reduce the number
of CFR pages.
NPRM
5/96
Final
11/96
468 Copper Forming Point
Source Category-CWA (pgs.
525-543; 18 pgs.)
Modify
Restructure as described
above in description of
action for Parts 405-471.
This action would
reduce the number
of CFR pages.
NPRM
5/96
Final
11/96
469 Electrical & Electronic
Components Point Source
category-CWA (pgs. 543-
550; 7 pgs.)
Modify
Restructure as described
above in description of
action for Parts 405-471.
This action would
reduce the number
of CFR pages.
NPRM
5/96
Final
11/96
471 Nonferrous Metals Forming
& Metal Powders Point
Source Category-CWA (pgs.
550-670; 120 pgs.)
Modify
Restructure as described
above in description of
action for Parts 405-471.
This action would
reduce the number
of CFR pages.
NPRM
5/96
Final
11/96
SUBCHAPTER O-SEWAGE SLUDGE
501 State Sludge Management
Program Regs-CWA Sec.
101(e), 405(f), 501(a), &
518(e) (pgs. 671-691; 20
pgs.)
Modify
Revise and consolidate
existing permit appli-
cation forms and require-
ments for sludge facili-
ties, streamline the
application process by
allowing the use of
existing data and avoid-
ing unnecessary report-
ing, and examine elec-
tronic data submission.
This action
should minimize
the need for
repeated requests
for additional
information and
reduce reporting
burdens, particu-
larly for small
entities.
NPRM
9/95
Final
6/97
-------
Part
503
503
Title of Regulation
Standards for the Use or
Disposal of Sewage -Sludge-
CWA Sec. 405(d)&(e) (pgs.
691-722; 31 pgs.)
Continued. . .
Action:
Delete/
Modify/
Study/
Retain
Modify
Modify
Action
Revise continuous emis-
sion monitoring and other
pollutant limitation and
monitoring requirements
for sewage sludge incin-
erators to reduce moni-
toring frequencies and
make requirements self
implementing; and revise
to make minor technical
amendments to clarify
requirements and correct
omissions and typo-
graphical errors.
Revise to include new
pollutant limits for
molybdenum and revised
requirements for incin-
erator emissions and
reporting and recording
keeping; to eliminate use
of the 99th percentile to
set pollutant concentra-
tions; and to allow
higher ceiling limits for
pollutants in areas with
high background levels.
Benefit
This action would
provide the regu-
lated community
flexibility in
implementing site
specific require-
ments and would
conform certain
monitoring re-
quirements with
existing air mon-
itoring require-
ments.
This action would
relax a number of
existing require-
ments .
Target
Date
NPRM
6/9b
Final
6/96
NPRM
12/95
Final
6/97
------- |